Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated?

Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? NINA SPADA University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada PATSY M LIGHTBOWN Concordia University (Emeritus) Montreal, Quebec, Canada There is increasing consensus that form-focused instruction helps learners in communicative or content-based instruction to learn features of the target language that they may not acquire without guidance The subject of this article is the role of instruction that is provided in separate (isolated) activities or within the context of communicative activities (integrated) Research suggests that both types of instruction can be beneficial, depending on the language feature to be learned, as well as characteristics of the learner and the learning conditions For example, isolated lessons may be necessary to help learners who share the same first language (L1) overcome problems related to L1 influence on their interlanguage; integrated instruction may be best for helping learners develop the kind of fluency and automaticity that are needed for communication outside the classroom The evidence suggests that teachers and students see the benefits of both types of instruction Explanations for the effectiveness of each type of instruction are drawn from theoretical work in second language acquisition and cognitive psychology as well as from empirical research n the 1970s, a new pedagogy of communicative language teaching (CLT) and a new theoretical view of second language acquisition (SLA) emphasized the importance of language development that takes place while learners are engaged in meaning-focused activities Teachers and methodologists developed language classroom activities that featured interaction among learners, opportunities to use language in seeking and exchanging information, and less attention to learning metalinguistic rules or memorizing dialogues and practicing patterns (Brumfit, 1984; Howatt, 1984) One type of CLT that has become especially widespread is content-based instruction (CBI) in which the new language is a vehicle for learning subject matter that is of interest and value to the I TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 42, No 2, June 2008 181 learner It has been hypothesized that in CBI “language learning may even become incidental to learning about the content” (Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1992, p 28) However, some researchers have observed that good content teaching may not always be good language teaching (Swain, 1988), and since the introduction of CLT and CBI, debates have continued about whether and, if so, how attention to language form should be included in approaches to language instruction that are primarily meaning-focused THE ROLE OF FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION Some individuals, especially those who begin learning as young children, acquire high levels of second language ability without form-focused instruction (FFI) This outcome supports the hypothesis that FFI is not necessary for SLA However, it is rare for students in second or foreign language classes to reach such high levels Some claim that this failure to master a new language is due to physiological changes that occur with age Others point to the limitations inherent in classroom contexts Whatever the reason, learners who begin learning when they are beyond early childhood, especially those whose exposure to the target language occurs primarily or exclusively in classrooms where other students share the same L1, appear to benefit from FFI that helps them make more efficient use of their limited exposure to the sounds, words, and sentences of the language they are learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2006) One thing is certain: Language acquisition is not an event that occurs in an instant or as a result of exposure to a language form, a language lesson, or corrective feedback It is an evolving and dynamic phenomenon that is perhaps better characterized by the word development (suggesting ongoing change) than by the word acquisition (if this is taken to mean that the language user has complete and irrevocable possession of some linguistic knowledge or behavior).1 Some SLA researchers have hypothesized that when instruction focuses on the language itself, it is beneficial only in marginal ways and may even have a negative impact on language acquisition (Krashen, 1982, 1994; Truscott, 1996, 1999) They argue that, at most, explicit FFI alters language performance but does not change learners’ underlying grammar, which develops only through exposure to the language in natural interaction In their view, instruction may allow second language (L2) users to acquire metalinguistic knowledge, but this kind of knowledge is processed and stored separately from language that is acquired through 182 See Norris and Ortega (2003) for a review and discussion of definitions and measurements of second language knowledge and skill TESOL QUARTERLY interactive language use (Schwartz, 1993; Sharwood Smith, 2004; see Ellis, 2005, for review) Some of the empirical work investigating the kind of knowledge that is acquired during form-focused instruction has shown that FFI can play a role in helping classroom learners in CLT and CBI use their L2 with greater fluency and accuracy (e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 1993; Lyster, 2004) and to use language forms that represent more advanced developmental levels (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998) In these studies, efforts were made to develop tasks that elicited samples of spontaneous oral production In a meta-analysis of the instructed SLA research, Norris and Ortega (2000) also report benefits for FFI, in particular the positive effects of explicit instruction on L2 learning However, the majority of studies included in the meta-analysis used discrete-point, metalinguistic tests as measures of instructional effectiveness This bias has led to the call for more studies to examine the benefits of instruction on implicit knowledge (Doughty, 2003; Ellis, 2002a; Norris & Ortega, 2000) Improvements in language performance may reflect learners’ ability to make appropriate use of units of language that they have learned as whole unanalyzed chunks during form-focused practice or to use metalinguistic knowledge they have acquired during grammar lessons to monitor their output When learners produce language under conditions of time pressure or competing demands on attention, they may reveal that the underlying internal grammar of their interlanguage has not been substantially affected Even if this is the case, however, learners’ ability to use language with greater accuracy and fluency—at least in some circumstances—can contribute to language acquisition in several ways For example, in producing monitored or unanalyzed chunks of language, learners can create for themselves a sort of input and feedback loop that provides them with samples of the language that may be incorporated into their underlying grammatical systems later, when they are developmentally ready (Lightbown, 1998; Sharwood Smith, 2004) Another possible advantage of this ability to produce more correct or advanced language is that the contextually appropriate use of unanalyzed and/or monitored language allows learners to keep interactions going, thereby increasing their access to language input (Krashen, 1982) Further, the ability to use unanalyzed chunks of language may free cognitive resources for use in attending to external input (Ellis, 2005) Some language acquisition theories assume a more direct relationship between metalinguistic or formulaic knowledge and spontaneous language use Skill acquisition theorists hypothesize that language learned first as metalinguistic knowledge can, through repeated meaningful practice, eventually become so well incorporated and automatized that the language user forgets the metalinguistic information and may forget having learned it in the first place (DeKeyser, 2003) FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 183 The value of FFI within instruction that is primarily meaning-focused has been demonstrated by research conducted in CLT and CBI programs over the past 20 years In addition, teachers who have experience with the strong version of CLT—an exclusive focus on meaning with no attention to language form (Howatt, 1984; Spada, 2006a)—have observed that, without FFI, some language features never emerge in learners’ language, and some nontarget forms persist for years Experience with CLT and CBI shows that meaning-based exposure to the language allows L2 learners to develop comprehension skills, oral fluency, selfconfidence, and communicative abilities, but that they continue to have difficulties with pronunciation as well as with morphological, syntactic, and pragmatic features of the L2 (see, e.g., Harley & Swain, 1984; Lyster, 1987) Research in CLT and CBI classrooms shows that the introduction of FFI has contributed to changes in learners’ knowledge and use of certain language features (e.g., Day & Shapson, 1991; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Harley, 1989; White, Spada, Lightbown, & Ranta, 1991; Lyster, 2004; Sheen, 2005).2 Advocates of CBI have increasingly emphasized the importance of planning lessons that have both content objectives and linguistic objectives (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004; Pica, 2002; Schleppergrell, Achugar, & Oteíza, 2004) Thus, both research and teaching experience have led to a growing consensus that instruction is most effective when it includes attention to both form and meaning.3 As a result, the most engaging questions and debates in L2 pedagogy are no longer about whether CLT should include FFI but rather how and when it is most effective This article compares the role of FFI in lessons that are isolated from communicative or content-based interaction with that of FFI that is integrated within activities where the primary emphasis remains on meaning (e.g., in tasks or content-based lessons) Some teachers and students have strong opinions about this question (see Barkhuizen, 1998; Yorio, 1986), but researchers have not directly compared the effects of integrating or isolating form-focused and meaning-focused practice in CLT and CBI programs There are theoretical and pedagogical arguments for both isolation and integration of form and meaning in L2 instruction In our view, These studies differ in several ways, including the degree of explicitness of instruction Nonetheless, they can all be categorized as studies of FFI using the broad definition of FFI as proposed by Ellis (2001) This includes the primarily metalinguistic instruction associated with more traditional approaches to L2 teaching as evidenced in Sheen (2005) as well as instruction that is more implicit in nature, drawing learners’ attention to form in functional and meaning-based contexts as evidenced in Harley (1989) We thank the anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewer who reminded us that all grammatical forms have meaning and that a simple binary distinction between form and meaning is problematic We agree and use this terminology as a kind of shorthand referring to an emphasis on the structural or semantic properties of language 184 TESOL QUARTERLY making a choice between integrated and isolated FFI is not necessary (or advisable) Rather, the challenge is to discover the conditions under which isolated and integrated FFI respectively are most appropriate These conditions are likely to involve a number of factors, including the nature of the language feature (e.g., its complexity, and its frequency and salience in the input), learners’ developmental levels in the acquisition of the feature, and the relationship between comparable features in the learners’ L1 and the L2 Other important factors include teachers’ and learners’ preferences for how to teach/learn about form, learners’ literacy and metalinguistic sophistication (especially in their L1), and their age and overall L2 proficiency ISOLATED AND INTEGRATED FFI Johnson (1982) made a distinction between what he called the unificationist and separationist positions on the teaching of language use and language structure He described the separationist position as one with “structure being taught first (through a structural syllabus) followed by a second communicative stage at which use is taught and where structures are ‘activated’ or ‘recycled’” (p 129) According to Johnson, the separationist position implies “a divorce between the teaching of forms and uses, though other kinds of related separation are often also being implied—as between knowledge and its ‘activitation,’ between correctness and fluency” (p 129) In contrast, from the unificationist perspective, “the divorce of form and use is seen as undesirable and probably also untenable on linguistic and psycholinguistic grounds The position argues for a communicative framework from the very beginning” (p 129) Other writers have used different labels to distinguish different types of FFI Long (1991) has made a distinction between focus on forms and focus on form Focus on forms refers to lessons in which language features are taught or practiced according to a structural syllabus that specifies which features are to be taught and in which sequence Focus on forms might involve teaching approaches as varied as mimicry and memorization or grammar translation, but all are based on the assumption that language features should be taught systematically, one at a time In contrast, Long’s focus on form refers to instruction in which the main emphasis remains on communicative activities or tasks but in which a teacher intervenes to help students use language more accurately when the need arises Originally, Long (1991) defined focus on form as reactive and incidental That is, it was limited to those classroom events in which the teacher responded to a difficulty that arose as students engaged in communicative activities or tasks The language feature that FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 185 required focus was not determined in advance More recent interpretations of focus on form have expanded the definition to include instruction in which teachers anticipate that students will have difficulty with a particular feature as they engage in a communicative task and plan in advance to target that feature through feedback and other pedagogical interventions, all the while maintaining a primary focus on meaning (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Long & Robinson, 1998) In this article, we have chosen to use the terms isolated and integrated to describe two approaches to drawing learners’ attention to language form in L2 instruction.4 Isolated FFI is provided in activities that are separate from the communicative use of language, but it occurs as part of a program that also includes CLT and/or CBI Isolated FFI may be taught in preparation for a communicative activity or after an activity in which students have experienced difficulty with a particular language feature In isolated FFI, the focus on language form is separated from the communicative or content-based activity This approach differs from Long’s focus on forms, which refers to language instruction and practice organized around predetermined points of grammar in a structural syllabus, that is, form-based instruction that is not directly tied to genuinely communicative practice In integrated FFI, the learners’ attention is drawn to language form during communicative or content-based instruction This definition corresponds to focus on form (both planned and incidental) as defined by Ellis (2002a) and by Doughty and Williams (1998) That is, although the form focus occurs within a communicative activity, the language features in focus may have been anticipated and planned for by the teacher or they may occur incidentally in the course of ongoing interaction Before discussing the role we see for each approach, a few comments are in order on how the distinction between isolated and integrated FFI is related to other contrasts in L2 research and pedagogy, such as intentional versus incidental learning (Hulstijn, 2003) and explicit versus implicit instruction (DeKeyser, 2003) 186 One reviewer suggested that the term isolated carries “a clearly negative connotation.” We understand that interpretation and agree that the term certainly has had that connotation in much writing about language teaching Nevertheless, we have chosen to retain this term because it allows us to emphasize the importance of instruction in which teachers and students focus their attention on language features that are almost impossible to perceive or acquire when they occur in ordinary communicative interaction, either because they are acoustically imperceptible (e.g., most grammatical morphology in English) or redundant and unlikely to affect comprehension (e.g., word order in English questions) We suggest that it is sometimes necessary to isolate such forms—much as one might place a specimen under a microscope—so that learners have an opportunity to perceive these features and understand their function in the language they encounter in communicative interaction As we have stated previously, learners cannot be expected to benefit from brief, integrated focus on form if they not understand what the teacher is calling their attention to (Lightbown, 1998, p 194) TESOL QUARTERLY Isolated FFI is the provision of instruction in lessons whose primary purpose is to teach students about a particular language feature because the teacher believes that students are unlikely to acquire the feature during communicative activities without an opportunity to learn about the feature in a situation where its form and meaning can be made clear From the teacher’s perspective, isolated FFI always implies intentional learning and explicit instruction However, classroom observation research shows that even in traditional classrooms in which grammar lessons are based on a structural syllabus, students are not always sure of the teacher’s intended focus (Slimani, 1992) That is, the explicitness and intentionality that the teacher has in mind may not be recognized by the students Integrated FFI occurs in classroom activities during which the primary focus remains on meaning, but in which feedback or brief explanations are offered to help students express meaning more effectively or more accurately within the communicative interaction Some writers seem to assume that drawing learners’ attention to form during meaning-based activities always involves implicit feedback and incidental learning, but that is not necessarily the case Again, the perceptions of teachers and learners may be different Adult learners sometimes show that they interpret the teacher’s implicit feedback (e.g., in the form of recasts) as explicit guidance, creating an opportunity for intentional language learning (e.g., Ohta, 2000; Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen 2001) However, even when they recognize the teacher’s implicit feedback as relevant to language form, learners may not correctly identify the object of the teacher’s attention (see Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000, for a related study) Both isolated and integrated FFI can include explicit feedback on error, metalinguistic terminology, the statement of rules, and explanations Consider the following example of explicit, integrated FFI The context is a communicative activity Grade students are playing a game in which they have to correctly guess the location of different dolls in a doll house to gain enough points to win the game Note that, in preparation for the game, examples of appropriate questions had been written on the board Student: Is George is in the living room? Teacher: You said “is” two times, dear Listen to you—you said, “Is George is in Look on the board “Is George in the ” and then you say the name of the room Student: Is George in the living room? Teacher: Yeah Student: I win! (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p 167) FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 187 In this example, the teacher provided explicit corrective feedback to a student when he made an error of form, even though the meaning he conveyed was comprehensible First, she drew attention to the error, providing information as to what the error was Although she explicitly focused on form, and the student appeared to understand and use the feedback, it seems that this did not interfere with his continuing interest in the ongoing game Such FFI is thus both integrated and explicit From the teacher’s perspective, the focus on question forms was also intentional: She had prepared for the activity with an isolated lesson on question forms, writing examples of appropriate questions on the board Another example of integrated FFI, one that includes the statement of rules and metalinguistic explanations, is an activity in which pairs of students respond to true–false (T/F) statements about medical history using a timeline showing names, dates, and descriptions of discoveries Some of the T/F statements are expressed in the active voice while others are in the passive (e.g., Freud developed a method for examining mental processes known as psychoanalysis; Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928) The focus is on content and meaning As students discuss their responses to the questions, the instructor selects the two T/F statements above and asks the students to examine them with the following questions in mind: “What is given more emphasis in the first sentence— ‘Freud [the subject] or psychoanalysis [the object]?’” “What is more prominent in the second sentence?” This leads into a brief explanation (5 or minutes) of active/passive sentences, how they are formed and how they function, using one or two other examples The teacher then asks students to return to responding to the T/F questions using the information on the timeline to assist them (See Samuda, 2001, for an example of integrated FFI targeting the use of modal auxiliaries.) One final note is essential before we discuss the different roles of isolated and integrated FFI For purposes of the discussion, we present these approaches as if they were entirely distinct It is clear, however, that they are really the ends of a continuum, especially as we are examining their role within CLT and CBI contexts for teaching and learning That is, we not see isolated and integrated FFI as being in competition with each other; rather, we see them as complementary parts of a complete language learning environment Although we are convinced that there is a role for isolated FFI, we see it as occurring within instruction that is primarily interactive and communicative Ultimately, the ability to use language automatically in communicative settings requires experience in doing exactly that Providing integrated FFI in CLT and CBI contexts is the instructional model that has the greatest potential for facilitating the development of fluent and accurate language that is available for use outside the classroom We concur with DeKeyser (1998), who, in his critique of rote drill in audiolingual language teaching, commented that 188 TESOL QUARTERLY practice is valuable for language learning when it involves practice in “conveying personal meanings” (pp 53–54) The Role of Integrated FFI In the pedagogical literature, there is considerable support for integrating form focus within communicative activities as well as considerable skepticism about the effectiveness of instruction that separates form focus from meaningful interaction (see, e.g., Calvé, 1994) Celce-Murcia (1991) argues that “grammar should never be taught as an end in itself but always with reference to meaning, social factors or discourse—or a combination of these factors” (pp 466–467) Brumfit (1984) asserts that “teachers should not prevent learners from combining a concern with language use with worry about formal accuracy in terms of specific language items” (p 53) Brumfit’s assertion may be taken as evidence that, for some learners at least, feedback that comes during communicative interaction may have a positive effect on motivation.5 Knowing that help is available when it is needed may respond to the expectations and preferences of students—especially adult students—in language classes (see Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Schulz, 1996, 2001) Theoretical support for integration comes from both SLA and cognitive psychology Long (1991) has argued that focus on language form should be fully integrated into ongoing communicative interaction In fact, as noted earlier, in some of his writing, Long (e.g., 1991) argued that teachers should provide focus on form only on those language features that occur naturally in the course of a task or activity in which students are using the language in meaningful interaction In his revised interaction hypothesis, Long (1996) states that while comprehensible input and meaningful interaction provide the raw material for language acquisition, they also provide the ideal context for spontaneous (i.e., integrated) attention to language form Other SLA concepts such as negotiation of form (Lyster, 1994a, 1994b) and metatalk (Swain & Lapkin, 2002) also point to the benefits of reflecting on language form during communicative language use There are differences among these theoretical constructs, but all of them are compatible with the hypothesis that while instruction may not directly alter learners’ underlying language systems, it can help them notice features in the input, making it more It is important to note that we not equate integrated FFI with CLT As evident in the research literature and in classroom practice, CLT has many different meanings, some of which include no attention to language form (i.e., the strong version of CLT) and others that include attention to form, albeit in different ways (see Howatt, 1984 and Spada, 2006a for discussions of the evolution and interpretations of CLT) FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 189 likely that they will acquire them (Gass, 1997; Lightbown, 1998; Schmidt, 1990) One theoretical approach that has recently been used to explain the possible benefits of integrated FFI is transfer appropriate processing (TAP) According to TAP, learners retrieve knowledge best if the processes for retrieval are similar to those that were used in the learning condition (Blaxton, 1989; Franks, Bilbrey, Lien, & McNamara, 2000; Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977) In addition, the situation, objects, and events that are present at the time of learning are connected through a network of associations Therefore, retrieval is likely to be easier when learners find themselves using similar processes or in the presence of the same objects or situations TAP has only recently begun to receive attention in the SLA literature, but research on bilinguals’ memory for lexical items provides some indications of what SLA research may reveal In these studies, bilingual participants are consistently more successful in retrieving the words they learned when the testing tasks are similar to the learning tasks (Basden, Bonilla-Meeks, & Basden, 1994; Durgunoglu & Roediger, 1987) Research on the learning and retrieval of more complex units of language remains to be done However, it seems that TAP would predict that language learned during communicative activities in which learners’ attention is briefly drawn to form (i.e., integrated FFI) would be more easily retrieved in communicative situations than, say, on decontextualized tests In contrast, L2 knowledge learned outside communicative activities in isolated FFI would be more difficult to retrieve in communicative situations outside the classroom (Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, & Tharp, 2003; Segalowitz & Gatbonton, 1995; Segalowitz & Lightbown, 1999) This hypothesis is consistent with the observation of many teachers and researchers: Students who perform well on tests are not necessarily fluent users of the test items in spontaneous speech, just as many fluent speakers whose language acquisition has taken place primarily outside the classroom perform poorly on tests requiring metalinguistic knowledge or the retrieval of individual language features outside a communicative context Although support for integrated FFI comes primarily from theoretical extrapolations and pedagogical principles, there is also some evidence of its effectiveness in classroom-based studies of CLT and CBI In our research in intensive ESL classes that were almost exclusively meaningfocused, young students were successful in acquiring certain language features when their teachers provided ongoing, integrated FFI on a limited number of these features (Lightbown, 1991; Lightbown & Spada, 1990) Those receiving integrated FFI were substantially more likely to acquire these features than students in classes where there was never any attention to form Research in French immersion programs (Day & 190 TESOL QUARTERLY found that attention to meaning was associated with poorer recall of formal features such as the spelling or pronunciation of words They interpreted their findings in terms of the TAP hypothesis As noted earlier, according to TAP, the best predictor of success in retrieving information is the degree of similarity between the conditions and processing demands present during learning and those present during retrieval Thus, a learning task in which cognitive effort is devoted to semantic features of a word is not a good preparation for a test in which learners need to retrieve information about perceptual or formal features of the word If the assessment task requires learners to recall or recognize the correct spelling or pronunciation of a word, the learning task should create conditions in which learners can devote more processing capacity to those features To be sure, the goal of most language learning is ultimately to be able to use language forms correctly in communicative contexts that include multiple demands on attention However, what the research by VanPatten, Barcroft, and Trofimovich shows is that such contexts may not be conducive to the initial perception and interpretation of certain language features To our knowledge, no empirical classroom-based research directly compares the effects of isolated and integrated instruction.7 It is important to keep in mind that our definition of isolated FFI is attention to form in separate lessons that occur within a program that is primarily communicative in orientation In that sense, it is not the same as Long’s definition of focus on forms, which is associated with traditional discretepoint metalinguistic instruction provided in a context where little or no meaning-based instruction or practice occurs Similarly, our definition of integrated FFI is not the same as Long’s original definition of focus on form, which includes only reactive FFI whereas integrated FFI includes both reactive and proactive FFI In this way, our definition of integrated FFI is similar to Ellis’s (2001) definition of planned and incidental focus on form A reviewer argues that such studies exist and points to Sheen (2005) as an example While Sheen’s study does show the benefits of instruction in helping young francophone students make more accurate use of questions and the placement of adverbs in English sentences, it is not a comparison of integrated and isolated FFI as we define them in this paper As we read the report of that research, it seems to show that the students in the comparison group received almost no FFI at all It is important to emphasize, again, that integrated FFI is not simply a synonym for CLT with little or no attention to language form Integrated FFI includes brief explanations, corrective feedback, explicit elicitations of correct forms, and input enhancement provided within the context of meaning-based instruction Sheen’s description of the comparison class in his study indicates that the instructor did not make any special attempt to integrate FFI related to questions and adverbs in his regular classroom activities In the experimental class, students received instruction that is best described as focus on forms not as isolated FFI The distinction between the two is that isolated FFI is provided in separate lessons that are directly related to the activities within a communicative or content-based syllabus whereas focus on forms lessons typically occur within a structural syllabus that is not closely linked to the ongoing communicative activities FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 193 This review of the theoretical, pedagogical, and empirical support for integrated and isolated instruction indicates that there are arguments on both sides and that the choice between the two is likely not an absolute one, but rather a choice that is dependent on other factors In the next section, we outline some of those factors FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OF ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED FFI SLA research shows that some linguistic features are acquired incidentally, that is, without intentional effort or conscious awareness by learners or guidance from teachers However, it is also evident that some language features develop very slowly, or not at all, in the absence of guided attention and that some types of FFI can increase the likelihood that learners will make progress in learning these features (Norris & Ortega, 2000) Some language features develop according to a natural sequence of stages that is not altered by instruction (For overviews, see Ellis, 1994; Gass & Selinker, 2001; Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Mitchell & Myles, 1998.) However, while instruction may have only a limited effect on the path learners follow through developmental sequences, it may affect the rate at which learners pass through a sequence (see, e.g., Ellis, 1989; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Pienemann, 1989; Spada & Lightbown, 1993) Several factors may influence the relationship between instruction and learning outcomes These factors are dynamic, changing over the course of learners’ language acquisition and within different teaching contexts.8 L1 Influence One hypothesis is that isolated FFI is particularly useful when the L1 has a strong influence on L2 forms Errors caused by L1 influence can be problematic in classrooms where learners share the same first language and reinforce each other’s L1-based errors (Lightbown, 1991; Lyster, 1987) In situations like these, isolated FFI may be needed to clarify misleading similarities between the L1 and L2 Harley (1993) points to the distinction between French avoir/être and have/be in English as an example Isolated FFI may also help in those cases where learners have developed, based on L1 influence, an interlanguage rule that is more 194 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for emphasizing the dynamic nature of the factors that influence instructional choices TESOL QUARTERLY general than the related rule in the L2 White (1991) discusses this problem with specific reference to differences between adverb placement in French and English subject-verb-object sentences and advocates isolated FFI as a way of helping learners perceive those differences Salience in the Input Isolated FFI may be beneficial with features that are relatively simple to explain or illustrate but are not particularly salient in oral language Drawing attention to them in isolation may help learners see/hear language features they have not been noticing in the input, the first step on the path to acquisition Although some studies have reported benefits of input enhancement, that is, increasing frequency and/or salience of language features in the input (Alanen, 1995; Doughty, 1991), others have reported partial or no benefits (Spada & Lightbown, 1999; Trahey & White, 1993; White, 1998) These conflicting findings appear to be related to differences in the kind of enhancement More explicit enhancement appears to lead to more L2 progress than less explicit enhancement (Norris & Ortega, 2000).9 This finding suggests that isolated FFI might be useful for creating the necessary salience to help learners notice language forms that occur frequently but are semantically redundant or phonologically reduced or imperceptible in the oral input Such forms could include, for example, third-person -s in English and adjective agreement morphology in French Input Frequency Isolated FFI may also help ensure that students have opportunities to learn forms that are rare or absent in the language they are exposed to in the CLT or CBI classroom Lyster (1994b) reports findings to support this idea in his investigation of the effects of FFI on the learning of the sociolinguistic distinction between second-person pronouns tu and vous in French immersion classrooms Students were familiar with the singular/plural distinction between these two words, but the social dynamics of the classroom in which they were learning French did not give them opportunities to observe the politeness distinctions that are signaled by the different pronoun forms Lyster developed an instructional interven9 It may also be that explicit instruction seems to have some benefits because the assessment measures used favor explicit knowledge (see Doughty, 2003 for discussion) Norris and Ortega (2000, p 501) themselves acknowledge this possibility but argue that their findings cannot be explained by this single variable FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 195 tion that included opportunities for isolated FFI Drawing students’ attention to this distinction probably prepared them to notice the use of the forms in the communicative and integrated FFI activities that followed, and their ability to use these forms improved significantly Rule Complexity It has been suggested that integrated FFI may be a more appropriate approach to instruction for language features that are complex and have rules that are difficult to describe However, although there is some intuitive agreement about a distinction between hard and easy rules, it is not always clear what is meant by these terms (see Hulstijn, 1995; Hulstijn & DeGraaff, 1994, for useful attempts to define them) Furthermore, as DeKeyser (2003) points out, in addition to the inherent difficulty of a form or a rule, there is also subjective difficulty: “Rule difficulty is an individual issue that can be described as the ratio of the rule’s inherent linguistic complexity to the students’ ability to handle such a rule—a rule of moderate difficulty for one student may be easy for a student with more language learning aptitude or language learning experience” (p 331) A fairly widespread assumption in the SLA literature is that that while easy rules can be taught, hard rules are by their very nature too complex to be successfully taught in isolated instruction and thus are difficult to learn through traditional explanation and practice pedagogy that is isolated from communicative use of the language Thus, integrated FFI may be more suitable for complex/abstract features, such as the article system in English In laboratory studies to investigate the learning of simple and complex morphosyntactic rules, DeKeyser (1995) and Robinson (1996) provide some support for this idea Participants in those studies learned simple morphosyntactic rules better under conditions of explicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under implicitinductive conditions Conclusions drawn from these studies remain controversial, however, and are perhaps best seen as hypotheses in need of further study Communicative Value Integrated FFI may also be particularly useful with features in which errors are more likely to lead to communication breakdowns (e.g., English possessive pronouns his and her) Lightbown (1998) suggests that L2 learners at various levels of proficiency are more likely to be able to focus on form and meaning at the same time when the “form in focus ( .) 196 TESOL QUARTERLY is an important carrier of the meaning in focus” (p 192) However, when errors not interfere with meaning (e.g., the absence of inversion in questions such as What she is reading?), isolation from communicative interaction may be necessary if learners are to notice the difference between what they say and the correct way to say what they mean (Spada, Lightbown, & White, 2005) The relative importance of using the right word as compared with using the right grammar is also reflected in Schwartz’s (1993) observation that instruction and feedback are more likely to lead to changes in learners’ knowledge and use of lexical items than of morphology and syntax Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000) have observed that recasts, a typical characteristic of integrated FFI, are more likely to be noticed when the element being recast is a lexical item than when it is a morphosyntactic element (see also Lyster, 1998) Learners’ Developmental Level Once a language feature has emerged in learners’ interlanguage (see Pienemann, 1998), more fluent and accurate use of that feature may best be encouraged through integrated FFI Several studies on FFI have reported that L2 learners benefit most from FFI when they are at a developmental level in their language acquisition that enables them to compare their use of particular forms with that of native and more proficient speakers (Mackey & Philp, 1998; Spada & Lightbown, 1999) Related to this finding is the observation that learners’ receptive and productive abilities not develop in the same way or at the same rate However, recent research investigating the effects of both input- (i.e., comprehension) and output- (i.e., production) based practice on L2 development indicates that both comprehension and production improve as long as the practice is meaningful and learners are encouraged to make form– meaning connections (Morgan-Short & Wood Bowden, 2006; see also DeKeyser, 1998) As noted earlier, learners may need isolated FFI, such as VanPatten’s processing instruction, to help them detect and understand form– meaning relationships for language features that have low salience, low frequency, or low communicative value Once the features have emerged in the interlanguage or once the form–meaning connections have been made, the development of greater fluency is likely to be favored by integrated FFI Ammar and Spada (2006) found that French-speaking children who were already more proficient in using possessive determiners his and her were able to take advantage of integrated instruction, whether in the form of recasts (where the teacher provides the correct form) or prompts (where the teacher elicits a correction from the student) However, students who were less proficient benefited more from FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 197 prompts than recasts, suggesting that they had greater difficulty recognizing the purpose of the feedback Learners’ Age In general, older learners, especially those with experience in the study of their own or other languages, are more receptive to isolated grammatical instruction (see, e.g., Barkhuizen, 1998) Outside the classroom, in environments where they are completely immersed in the target language, very young learners often acquire L2 proficiency with little or no FFI Older children, adolescents, and adults, however, appear to benefit from instruction and may even depend on it because of the ways in which their language-learning abilities differ from those of young children (Bley-Vroman, 1988; DeKeyser, 2000), especially if their contact with the language is limited to the second or foreign language classroom Research in CLT and CBI contexts has shown that children not always recognize integrated FFI (including enhanced input and implicit recasts) as responses to language form rather than meaning (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997) However, they respond to integrated feedback which is explicit (e.g., through the use of emphasis, prompting, and elicitation as well as other nonverbal signals; see, e.g., Ammar & Spada, 2006; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Lyster, 2004) or which is provided within the context of language teaching where the overall orientation includes a strong focus on language form (Lyster & Mori, 2006) Adult learners, in a variety of language learning contexts, have been shown to be more aware of integrated FFI as feedback on language form (see, e.g., Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001; Ohta, 2000) Language-Learning Aptitude Learners who perform well on language aptitude tests or have more metalinguistic knowledge and skill in their L1 may be better able to notice and focus on language form within a communicative context than those with poorer aptitude and metalinguistic ability It has been hypothesized that learners with poor metalinguistic skills in their own language may require more explicit (possibly isolated) instruction to help them identify some form–meaning connections (Ranta, 2002) Mackey, Philp, Egi, Fujii, and Tomoaki (2002) found that adult learners with higher scores on tests of working memory were more likely to report that they noticed interactional (integrated) feedback in the form of recasts (see also Robinson, 2002) 198 TESOL QUARTERLY Learner and Teacher Preferences for How to Teach or Learn About Form Research on students’ beliefs and opinions about FFI (i.e., instruction and corrective feedback) has revealed that teachers’ and students’ views often differ In two large-scale studies, Schulz (1996, 2001) found that virtually all students expressed a desire to have their errors corrected, but very few teachers felt this was desirable In addition, students were more likely than teachers to say that formal study of the language is “essential to the eventual mastery of a [foreign language]” (2001, p 247) Mismatches like these have long been reported in the literature (Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Yorio, 1986) The effects of matches and mismatches on L2 learning have also been investigated (e.g., Spada, 1987; Wesche, 1981), and there is some evidence that learners benefit most from instruction that suits their preferences (see Dörnyei, 2005, for summary and discussion) Other factors such as individual learning styles and previous experience learning languages can also lead to different preferences for learning As indicated earlier, some L2 learners who have learned languages via traditional structure-based approaches often have strong preferences for continuing to learn via isolated grammar practice Other L2 learners who have learned languages informally may respond more positively to FFI that is integrated with meaning What is clear is that characteristics such as these can interact with type of instruction in complex ways, leading to more or less successful learning (Skehan, 1989) It is not only learners who have different preferences for isolated and/or integrated FFI So teachers Research on teacher cognition has revealed that L2 teachers often teach grammar in the way in which they were taught it themselves (Borg, 2003; Farrell, 1999) There is also evidence of a direct relationship between what teachers know about grammar and how they teach it That is, the extent to which grammar is taught deductively depends on how much metalinguistic knowledge teachers possess (Borg, 2001; Brumfit, Mitchell, & Hooper, 1996) Of course, there are L2 instructors who not believe that grammar instruction is useful In a study comparing second (English) and foreign (French) language instruction, Mitchell and Hooper (1992) observed that the English teachers rarely focused on language or explicit grammar work but the foreign language teachers regularly did so When interviewed about this finding, the English teachers expressed the opinion that this type of activity was not of primary importance for developing students’ linguistic ability—a response that is not atypical of L2 instructors who have adopted the strong version of CLT It is often observed that teachers who are teaching their own native language may not have as good a grasp of the formal grammar of the FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 199 language as those whose learning has included form-focused L2 instruction In a study of teachers’ practices, Borg (1998) observed that decisions to include explicit formal instruction are not always based on teachers’ belief that grammar instruction works but rather on their belief that students expect it He also observed that when teaching grammar, teachers not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach (e.g., deductive or inductive) but will combine and alternate between them Similarly, in a study of 48 teachers’ attitudes to explicit or implicit teaching of grammar in an English for academic purposes (EAP) program, Burgess and Etherington (2002) report that the majority of teachers believed that it is useful to integrate grammar within authentic texts rather than teach it explicitly using a grammatical syllabus At the same time, however, they also expressed the belief that not all grammatical knowledge can be learned implicitly and thus advocated explicit instruction as well In our research investigating the preferences of teachers and adult learners for integrated or isolated FFI, we have found that neither group expresses a consistent preference for one over the other They value both (Spada, 2006b) CONCLUSION Research and theory suggest that there is a role in CLT and CBI for both isolated and integrated FFI Each type of instruction may play a different role in promoting language acquisition Research and experience in CLT and CBI affirm that not all language features need to be taught in isolated lessons Instead, the current research on classroom learning shows that incidental learning allows students to acquire a great deal of language while focused on meaning in CLT and CBI The addition of integrated FFI can contribute to the automatization of language features that have emerged in students’ language but that are not used reliably when there are competing demands for attention Integrated FFI includes a wide range of approaches, including the kind of implicit feedback that occurs as the need or opportunity arises, as well as the kind of planned interaction that requires the repeated, but natural, use of a particular language form Nevertheless, isolated lessons may be useful, or even essential, in promoting the acquisition of some language features These features include those that are hard to perceive in the normal stream of communicative speech, those for which there is a misleading similarity to the L1, and those that are unlikely to cause communication breakdown We are currently designing quasiexperimental studies to explore the contributions of both types of FFI The importance of isolated lessons will be determined by differences 200 TESOL QUARTERLY in the specific language feature that is being taught as well as by differences in learners’ and teachers’ characteristics, abilities, and preferences We find no evidence to support a suggestion that isolated grammar lessons without opportunities for communicative language use should again become the dominant approach to language instruction Isolated lessons are a starting point or a follow-up for communicative or content-based activities Above all, they should not be expected to result in students’ immediate incorporation of the feature in focus into their communicative language use Nevertheless, such lessons can prepare students to make the best use of opportunities for continuing their language acquisition in meaning-focused activities and integrated FFI when it occurs ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The reviewers who provided feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript helped us to make this a better article We did not always agree with the reviewers (who, indeed, strongly disagreed with each other), but their feedback helped us understand and present our own views better We are also grateful to the graduate students and research assistants in N Spada’s research group at OISE/UT for their insightful comments on this manuscript and related literature THE AUTHORS Nina Spada is a professor in the Second Language Education program at OISE/ University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, where she teaches courses in L2 teaching and learning Her research focuses on the contributions of form-focused instruction to the L2 development of children and adults in communicative programs Patsy M Lightbown is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, and a former president of AAAL Her research explores relationships between L2 teaching and learning, especially for children and adolescents REFERENCES Alanen, R (1995) Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition In R Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (pp 259–302) Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press Ammar, A., & Spada, N (2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574 Anderson, J (1982) Acquisition of cognitive skill Psychological Review, 89, 369–406 Barcroft, J (2002) Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition Language Learning, 52, 323–363 Barkhuizen, G P (1998) Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South African context TESOL Quarterly, 32, 85–108 FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 201 Basden, B H., Bonilla-Meeks, J L., & Basden, D R (1994) Cross-language priming in word-fragment completion Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 69–82 Blaxton, T A (1989) Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 657–668 Bley-Vroman, R (1988) The fundamental character of foreign language learning In W Rutherford & M Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching (pp 19–30) New York: Newbury House Borg, S (1998) Talking about grammar in the foreign language classroom Language Awareness, 7, 159–175 Borg, S (2001) Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar ELT Journal, 55, 21–29 Borg, S (2003) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and Language Teaching, 36, 81– 109 Brumfit, C J (1984) Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Brumfit, C., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J (1996) Grammar, language, and classroom practice In M Hughes (Ed.), Teaching and learning in changing times (pp 70–87) Oxford: Blackwell Burgess, J., & Etherington, S (2002) Explicit or implicit grammar? System, 30, 433– 458 Calvé, P (1994) Comment faire de la grammaire sans trahir le discours: Le cas des exercices grammaticaux Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 636–645 Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J W B (1976) Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors In J Fanselow & R Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’76: Selections Based on Teaching Done at the 10th annual TESOL Convention (pp 41–53) Washington, DC: TESOL Celce-Murcia, M (1991) Discourse analysis and grammar instruction Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 135–151 Day, E., & Shapson, S (1991) Integrating formal and functional approaches in language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study Language Learning, 41, 25–58 DeKeyser, R (1995) Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–297 DeKeyser, R (1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 42–63) New York: Cambridge University Press DeKeyser, R M (2000) The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 493–533 DeKeyser, R (2003) Implicit and explicit learning In C J Doughty & M H Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 313–348) Malden, MA: Blackwell Doherty, R W., Hilberg, R S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R G (2003) Five standards and student achievement NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1, 1–24 Dörnyei, Z (2005) The psychology of the language learner Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Doughty, C (1991) Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469 Doughty, C (2003) Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement 202 TESOL QUARTERLY In C J Doughty & M H Long (Eds.) The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 256–310) Malden, MA: Blackwell Doughty, C., & Varela, E (1998) Communicative focus on form In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 114–138) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Doughty, C., & Williams, J (1998) Pedagogical choices in focus on form In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 197–261) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Durgunoglu, A Y., & Roediger, H L., III (1987) Test differences in assessing bilingual memory Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 377–391 Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D J (2004) Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model Boston: Pearson Ellis, N C (1997) Vocabulary acquisition, word structure, collocation, word-class, and meaning In N Schmitt & M McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp 122–139) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ellis, N C (2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352 Ellis, R (1989) Are classroom and naturalistic language acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 305–328 Ellis, R (1994) The study of second language acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press Ellis, R (2001) Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction Language Learning, 51(Supplement 1), 1–46 Ellis, R (2002a) Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236 Ellis, R (2002b) The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum In E Hinkel & S Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp 17–34) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S (2001) Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons Language Learning, 51, 281–318 Farrell, T S C (1999) The reflective assignment: Unlocking pre-service teachers’ beliefs on grammar teaching RELC Journal, 30, 1–17 Franks, J J., Bilbrey, C W., Lien, K G., & McNamara, T P (2000) Transferappropriate processing (TAP) and repetition priming Memory & Cognition, 28, 1140–1151 Gass, S (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Gass, S., & Selinker, L (2001) Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Harley, B (1989) Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–359 Harley, B (1993) Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245–259 Harley, B (1998) The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition In C Doughty & J Williams, (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 156–174) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Harley, B., & Swain, M (1984) The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching In A Davies, C Criper, & A Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp 291–311) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Higgs, T V., & Clifford, R (1982) The push toward communication In T V Higgs FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 203 (Ed.), Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp 57–79) Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company Howatt, A P R (1984) A history of English language teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press Hulstijn, J (1995) Not all grammar rules are equal: Giving grammar instruction its proper place in foreign language teaching In R Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp 359–386) Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Hulstijn, J (2003) Incidental and intentional learning In C J Doughty & M H Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 349–382) Malden, MA: Blackwell Hulstijn, J., & DeGraaff, R (1994) Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal AILA Review, 11, 97–112 Jean, G (2005) Intégration de la grammaire dans l’enseignement des langues secondes: Le cas des exercices grammaticaux Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 519–542 Johnson, K (1982) Communicative syllabus design and methodology Oxford: Pergamon Press Krashen, S D (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition Oxford: Pergamon Press Krashen, S D (1994) The input hypothesis and its rivals In N Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp 45–77) London: Academic Press Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M H (1991) An introduction to second language acquisition research New York: Longman Lightbown, P M (1991) What have we here? Some observations on the role of instruction in second language acquisition In R Phillipson, E Kellerman, L Selinker, M Sharwood Smith, & M Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp 197–212) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Lightbown, P M (1998) The importance of timing in focus on form In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 177–196) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lightbown, P M., & Spada, N (1990) Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448 Lightbown, P M., & Spada, N (2006) How languages are learned (3rd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press Long, M H (1991) Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology In K de Bot, R Ginsberg, & C Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp 39–52) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Long, M H (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition In W Ritchie & T Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp 413–468) San Diego, CA: Academic Press Long, M., & Robinson, P (1998) Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 15–41) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lyster, R (1987) Speaking immersion Canadian Modern Language Review, 43, 701– 717 Lyster, R (1994a) La négotiation de la forme: Stratégie analytique en classe d’immersion Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 446–465 204 TESOL QUARTERLY Lyster, R (1994b) The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion learners’ sociolinguistic competence Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287 Lyster, R (1998) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms Language Learning, 48, 183–218 Lyster, R (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432 Lyster, R., & Mori, H (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300 Lyster, R., & Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66 Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K (2000) How learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497 Mackey, A., & Philp, J (1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356 Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tomoaki, T (2002) Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development In P Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp 181– 209) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J (1992) Teachers’ views of language knowledge In C James & P Garrett (Eds.), Language awareness in the classroom (pp 40–50) London: Longman Mitchell, R., & Myles, F (1998) Second language learning theories London: Arnold Morgan-Short, K., & Wood Bowden, H (2006) Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–66 Morris, D D., Bransford, J D., & Franks, J J (1977) Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533 Norris, J M., & Ortega, L (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis Language Learning, 50, 417–528 Norris, J., & Ortega, L (2003) Defining and measuring SLA In C J Doughty & M H Long (Eds.) The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 717–761) Malden, MA: Blackwell Ohta, A (2000) Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom In J K Hall & L Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp 47–71) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Pica, T (2002) Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19 Pienemann, M (1989) Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79 Pienemann, M (1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability theory Amsterdam: John Benjamins Raimes, A (2002) Errors: Windows into the mind In G DeLuca, L Fox, M Johnson, & M Kogen (Eds.) Dialogue on writing: Rethinking ESL, basic writing, and first-year composition (pp 279–287) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ranta, L (2002) The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom In P Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp 159–180) Amsterdam: John Benjamins FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 205 Robinson, P (1996) Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 233–247 Robinson, P (2002) Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfield and Hernstadt (1991) In P Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp 211–266) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Samuda, V (2001) Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher In M Bygate, P Skehan, & M Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp 119– 140) London: Longman Schleppergrell, M J., Achugar, M., & Oteíza, T (2004) The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language TESOL Quarterly, 38, 67–93 Schmidt, R (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning Applied Linguistics, 11, 17–46 Schulz, R A (1996) Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343–364 Schulz, R A (2001) Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar teaching and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia Modern Language Journal, 85, 244–258 Schwartz, B (1993) On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–162 Segalowitz, N., & Gatbonton, E (1995) Automaticity and lexical skills in second language fluency: Implications for computer assisted language learning Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8, 129–149 Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P M (1999) Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA The Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 23–43 Sharwood Smith, M (2004) In two minds about grammar: On the interaction of linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in performance Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 255–280 Sheen, R (2005) Focus on formS as a means of improving accurate oral production In A Housen & M Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp 271–310) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Skehan, P (1989) Individual differences in second language learning London: Arnold Slimani, A (1992) Evaluation of classroom interaction In C Alderson & A Beretta (Eds.), Evaluation in second language education (pp 197–220) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Snow, M A., Met, M., & Genesee, F (1992) A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content instruction In P A Richard-Amato & M A Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers (pp 27–38) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Spada, N (1987) Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process-product study of communicative language teaching Applied Linguistics, 8, 137–155 Spada, N (2006a) Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects In J Cummins & C Davis (Eds.), The international handbook of English language teaching Norwell, MA: Springer Spada, N (2006b) Teacher and learner preferences for isolated and integrated instruction [Research report prepared for the Continuing Education English Language Pro206 TESOL QUARTERLY gram of the University of Toronto and the Toronto Catholic District School Board] Toronto: OISE/University of Toronto Spada, N., & Lightbown, P M (1993) Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224 Spada, N., & Lightbown, P M (1999) Instruction, L1 influence and developmental readiness in second language acquisition Modern Language Journal, 83, 1–22 Spada, N., Lightbown, P M., & White, J L (2005) The importance of form/ meaning mappings in explicit form-focussed instruction In A Housen & M Pierrard (Eds.), Current issues in instructed second language learning (pp 199–234) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Stern, H H (1992) Issues and options in language teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press Swain, M (1988) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68–83 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S (2002) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ responses to reformulation International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285– 304 Trahey, M., & White, L (1993) Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204 Trofimovich, P (2005) Spoken-word processing in a native and a second language: An investigation of auditory word priming Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 479–504 Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Language Learning, 46, 327–369 Truscott, J (1999) What’s wrong with oral grammar correction Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437–456 VanPatten, B (1990) Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301 VanPatten, B (1996) Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research Norwood, NJ: Ablex VanPatten, B (2004) Input processing in SLA In B VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp 5–31) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T (1993) Explicit instruction and input processing Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243 Wesche, M (1981) Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems In K C Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp 119–154) Rowley, MA: Newbury House White, J (1998) Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 85–113) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press White, L (1991) Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom Second Language Research, 7, 133– 161 White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P M., & Ranta, L (1991) Input enhancement and L2 question formation Applied Linguistics, 12, 416–432 Williams, J., & Evans, J (1998) What kind of focus and on which forms? In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp 139–155) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Yorio, C (1986) Consumerism in second language learning and teaching Canadian Modern Language Review, 42, 668–687 FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION: ISOLATED OR INTEGRATED? 207